CO2 is a non-toxic gas; no pollutant;
we use it a lot in our daily life (soda "pop" and other carbonated drinks like beer and champagne; baking soda; fire extinguishers; life jackets; ...); and it has
only a trace concentration in the air. CO2 is FUNDAMENTAL for most organic life on Earth (photosynthesis
and breathing), which supplies us with the vital oxygen, which we need to survive. More CO2 and solar energy will make the plants produce more carbohydrates, i.e. our food.

The stable 13C/12C carbon isotopes in the air's CO2 give us the only way to determine its anthropogenic fraction: ~4%. This fraction would account for
less than 0.5 W/m2, less than 0.1% of the Greenhouse Effect, or ~0.1°C. Clouds have far more temperature regulating power than atmospheric CO2.
~96% of the air CO2 comes from non-fossil-fuel sources, i.e. natural marine and volcanic degassing.

Isotopic mass balance finds an air CO2 lifetime (halflife) ~5 years, like many other studies with other methods. ~18% of air CO2 is exchanged
annually in nature, almost 20 times more than added anthropogenically. The ocean's upper 200 m has enough calcium to bind ALL remaining fossil
fuel CO2 as calcium carbonate, which will not dissolve in the ocean. Henry's Law dictates that anthropogenic doubling of the global air CO2 is
impossible. The ocean pH varies considerably in surface water due to temperature. The pH buffers in the ocean constitute an almost infinite
buffer capacity, hence the assertion on anthropogenic acidification of the ocean, and dissolution of lime there, is not realistic.

September 2013: The Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) has this month published their 1000 page report:
Climate Change Reconsidered II (CCR-II) - Physical Science.

Tom V. Segalstad has been a contributor also to the NIPCC reports, and he has been part of NIPCC since its beginning in April 2007.
For the earlier reports from NIPCC, please go to near the end of this web page.

WATCH my "CO2 Experiment".
This video shows that a candle floating on water, burning in the air inside a glass, converts the oxygen in the air to CO2. The water rises in the glass because the CO2, which replaced the oxygen, is quickly dissolved in the water.
The water contains calcium ions Ca++, because we initially dissolved calcium hydroxide Ca(OH)2 in the water. The CO2 produced during oxygen burning reacts with the calcium ions to produce solid calcium carbonate CaCO3, which is easily visible as a whitening of the water when we switch on a flashlight.
This little kitchen experiment demonstrates the inorganic carbon cycle in nature. The oceans take out our anthropogenic CO2 gas by quickly dissolving it as bicarbonate HCO3-, which in turn forms solid calcium carbonate either organically in calcareous organisms or precipitates inorganically.
The CaCO3 is precipitating and not dissolving during this process, because buffering in the ocean maintains a stable pH around 8. We also see that CO2 reacts very fast with the water, contrary to the claim by the IPCC that it takes 50 - 200 years for this to happen.
Try this for yourself in your kitchen!

Abstract: Carbon and CO2 are fundamental for all life on Earth.
CO2 in air is in minimal amount and with minimal capacity (ca. 2%) to influence the "Greenhouse Effect" compared to water vapor (ca. 98%).
The carbon isotopes in the air's CO2 constitute the absolute proof that human influence on the "Greenhouse Effect" is minimal (maximum 4%).
Anthropogenic CO2 amounts to 4% of the 2% of the "Greenhouse Effect", hence an influence of less than 1 permil of the "Greenhouse Effect".
This is valid for a cloud-free atmosphere.
If we compare with the capability of the clouds to regulate the "Greenhouse Effect" (by retention of heat or reflection of solar radiation),
which is +/- 20-30%, the effect of atmospheric CO2 is negligible for climate. All measurements show that increasing incoming solar radiation
gives a warmer climate, previously called an optimum climate. But nowadays the whole world must base all human activities on brainwashed politicians, who BELIEVE in an unproven theory.

LINK TO [DOWNLOAD] an interesting paper by Alan Siddons & Joe D'Aleo:
"Carbon Dioxide: The Houdini of Gases" from http://icecap.us (PDF; 303 kbytes),
showing that humans cannot be responsible for the documented rise of carbon in the atmosphere --
not only do the numbers fail to match, but the numbers can't be made to match.
The graph above shows the rise in total atmospheric C in CO2 (in gigatonnes of carbon, red color)
since 1750, compared with anthropogenic (human) emissions of C in CO2 (in gigatonnes of carbon, green color).
Note that the green curve starts at zero in 1750, let to start at 590 Gt C for graphical reasons.

LINK TO [DOWNLOAD] an excellent paper by Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, for many years head of the UN Scientific Committee
on the Effects of Radiation (UNSCEAR)
"CO2 : The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time" from EIR Science, 16 March 2007, Pages 38-53
(as PDF-file; approx. 571 kbytes).

LINK TO Daniel Engber's article
"The new statistical rhetoric of climate change". This article has relevance on how to understand the IPCC 4th Assessment Report, where its lead authors have been told to use
"Calibrated Language",
using elements of statistical terminology to decribe their subjective "expert judgments".
According to the "IPCC Guidance Notes", their "Quantitatively calibrated levels of confidence" means
for "Medium confidence" "about 5 out of 10 chance".
There is hence a "medium confidence" of getting heads or tails by flipping a coin, or an answer like "yes" or "no" to a question. I would call this pure chance instead of medium confidence.
In statistics we were taught to make numerical estimates based on probabilities of a large population, in order to be allowed to use statistical expressions. Not like IPCC using statistical expressions based on subjective expert judgments! In this way IPCC is making a false impression that serious numerical statistical estimates have been made, while they have not.

LINK TO the
Another open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations by more than 125 concerned top scientists
in the Financial Post:
"Current scientific knowledge does not substantiate Ban Ki-Moon assertions on weather and climate -
Policy actions that aim to reduce CO2 emissions are unlikely to influence future climate. Policies need to focus on preparations for, and adaption to, all dangerous climate events, however caused";
dated November 29, 2012.

Tom V. SegalstadAssociate Professor of Resource- and Environmental Geochemistry; and
Former Head, Geological Museum of the Natural History Museum, University of Oslo, Norway; and
Former Head of the Natural History Museum and the Botanical Garden, University of Oslo, Norway.

Former Expert Reviewer with the UN IPCC,
the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change.

Created 29 June 1997; established at www.CO2web.info 15 March 2008; updated 16 February 2018.